Skip to main content

Without Revolutionary Theory...

The rejection of history, the willful ignorance of the hard-earned lessons of the past, which is so common in the movementist so-called "analysis" of the [predictably] dwindling occupy movement and last year's uprisings in the middle east, has once again reared its head in this blaise and flippant article about the role of theory in revolution.  Or, rather, lack of role, since the article argues that theory really has nothing to do with a revolution aside from explaining what happened after the fact and allowing us to perceive its "possibilities and limitations at a given point in history."  Theory is just a tool; we don't have to think about what we're doing and why we're doing it until after the fact; revolution is spontaneous––these are the same banal and confused claims certain sectors of the directionless left have been making for years.  Repetition, however, does not make something correct.

The title of the article in question, Was George Washington a Maoist?, is clearly rhetorical because the answer (historically, ideologically) is no.  And yet the title is representative of the article's weakness, demonstrating an inability to grasp both the movement of history and the historical meaning of theory.  The author is merely making the point that the success of the American Revolution (which is one of his examples, and an odd example for a progressive to pick) had nothing to do with whether or not Washington was guided by the "brilliance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought."  But Washington and the other ideologues of the so-called American Revolution did have, and even needed, a unified theory which guided and determined America's secessionist war: liberal bourgeois theory culled from the rightist line of the French Revolution, John Locke, Thomas Paine––a theory necessary to form an historical bloc, a unified hegemony, and everything needed to complete its goals, command the settler masses, and establish the germ form of today's United States of America. [Editorial note: I was glossing over things here and, because of an insightful comment, I should probably be clear about the point I'm making about the French and American Revolutions.  Although the latter started earlier, I ascribe to the theory that its ideology was further developed by the influence of the French Revolution and the French Revolution's earlier agitation point––this position comes from the school of thought that sees Paine's trip to France, and Paine's influence by what I call "the rightist line" of the French Revolution, as extremely significant.  This is also the reason why America chose to hold its legal secession meaning in France in 1792.]

Would George Washington have succeeded without the brilliance of marxism-leninism-maoism [not "thought" here, because I am one of those who reject that formulation]?  Yes, because he wasn't trying to pull-off a socialist revolution (and, in any case, a scientific comprehension of socialism was unknown) or even anything that could properly be called––after the French Revolution, after the Haitian Revolution––revolutionary.  He was leading a bourgeois secessionist war that was intensely capitalist and intensely colonialist and that was defined from the very beginning by an express theory.  This is why Samir Amin has refused to recognize the American Revolution as a proper revolution; it was simply a war between brothers, the younger of whom wanted the right to exploit for itself, a farcical repetition of the world historical French Revolution.  If it had been guided by a revolutionary theory rather than a theory derived from the ruling ideas of the ruling class (property, liberty, "no taxation without representation") we wouldn't have the United States of America but something that isn't a capitalist-colonialist-imperialist cesspit which was evident from the genocidal origin point of its so-called "revolution".  Thus theory, unified with historical praxis, is far more than a "tool": it is the grammar of a revolution, determining both the success and the meaning of a revolutionary movement.

This is why Lenin asserted that "without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement."  Cars, planes, and factories do not spontaneously build themselves; neither do revolutions. And though it would be senseless to imagine a car being built without the mechanical experience gleaned from social practice, it would be equally senseless to imagine a car's construction without schematics and the knowledge of past schematics.  Yes, theory emerges from historically embedded practice, but at the same time practice is also determined by theory.  Simply assuming that theory is tacked on––assuming that theory is nothing more than a bland act of expressing meaning after the fact of a revolutionary movement––is ahistorical.

For when we honestly examine those revolutions that were successful, or those revolutionary movements that have come close to success, we cannot help but notice the ideological hegemony of the forces and groups leading the revolution.  This is because a revolution, if it is going to be a revolution, needs to know what it is going to accomplish, how it's going to succeed, and what it is going to be.  It needs, in a word, theory.

(Even #occupy had a theory, though not a very good one, that overdetermined the movement.  Those of us who understood this theory, its historical precedents, and its expression of the 99%, were able to understand its meaning and its limits.)

More importantly, those of us who align ourselves with "marxism-leninism-maoism" assert that revolutionary theory is a living theory that has developed through successful world historical revolutions: again, theory both produces and is produced by praxis.  So returning to the car analogy, one would expect that the production of a decent automobile would take into account the successes and failures of past productions rather than, as the cliche goes, reinventing the wheel.  But I have discussed this before, as has the Signalfire essay cited in my previous post.

In any case, it would be rather easy for the author of the article in question to dismiss my critique with the charge (typical for academic undergraduates) that this is just my theory and, since theory was rejected from the outset, there's no point in responding to a theoretical engagement.  Well this is all fine and good, but the charge also applies to the author of Was George Washington a Maoist? for that article is also a theorization of history and revolution, even if it pretends otherwise.

The irony of the article is that it was written under the auspices of "occupy the marxist academy" and yet is precisely an expression of one of the dominant academic leftist political lines.  Indeed, it "occupies" marxist academia merely by occupying a position within the ranks of marxist academia that is quite uncontroversial; it challenges nothing.  After all, marxists academics most often express two theoretical lines regarding revolutionary theory: a) all past revolutionary theories are now erroneous and we need something new; b) there is no point in theorizing revolution since it will happen spontaneously, inventing itself from thin air, and so we should use theory to make sense of it after the fact.  Thus, this article really does nothing but reassert a very common academic position that is opportunist and petty bourgeois, imagining that it is somehow critiquing marxist academia when it is doing nothing of the sort.


  1. I responded to your critique of my post, but had one small question: We are discussing this using the assumptions of historical materialism right?

    1. Actually, and this is all I have to say, I would argue this is a very erroneous understanding of historical materialism. Not only did this fail to address any of the main points of my article, but by proposing your own definition of historical materialism, you side-stepped actual historical materialist critiques contained within the my article itself. Therefore: no significant response to my original point, a red herring detraction on your own definition of historical materialism.

      Simply saying I don't understand historical materialism, and then citing your own very simplistic notion of historical materialism that is not at all historical materialism but something more akin to the way Proudhon thought through categories, is not a response. It's a red herring argument.

      This comes from your inability to think dialectically: historical materialism is the science of history; the method of this science is dialectical materialism: you don't put one moment before the other, theory and practice are interconnected. This *is* what historical materialism is about. Furthermore, when Marx and Engels argued that they recognized only one science, the science of history, they used this as the building block to argue for the importance of socially and historically embedded practice (this is the essence of historical materialism, something I talked about in my post)... and here is where Amin, probably one of the greatest still living historical materialists who takes the theory of historical materialism serious, argued that we have to treat revolutionary theory as a living science and this is the germ understanding of historical materialism.

      Yes, it is true that Lenin took this from Kautsky but simply because Kautsky wrote it first, and Kautsky was a renegade, does not make it wrong. Before Kautsky betrayed the movement he was considered *the* expert on historical materialism. And Lenin, who still adhered to that statement in What is to Be Done?, and who is the one who branded Kautsky a renegade, did not reject the points where Kautsky had been correct. In fact, it is extremely bad historical materialism to reject all the insights of a thinker simply because they went down an erroneous path: you have to ask the reasons for this, understand the historical juncture, and abstract the scientific principle from the concrete circumstances.

      In any case, if your whole argument rests simply on the fact that I don't understand "historical materialism", when you were clearly unwilling to actually engage with essentially historical materialist arguments, then maybe you could stand to actually read the Marx texts you cite, as well as the Grundrisse (especially the introduction where Marx actually provides a proper definition of materialist dialectics), Capital where historical materialist reasoning is used, and the writings on the Paris Commune where, as an historical materialist, Marx does make comments about the need for theoretical unity. And yes, I do think Lenin and Mao were historical materialists because they understood universal principles in historically particular circumstances.

    2. [the above was written in response to the linked reply article... i planned to comment there, but it wouldn't let me comment because i apparently needed a facebook and/or yahoo account. I don't feel the need to expend another post on someone who brandishes the terminology "historical materialism" and yet clearly does not know how to think in an historical materialist manner]

  2. Thrice here, your wording makes it seem as if you think the American revolution occurred after the French Revolution. (A "farcical repetition", etc.) Anyhow, better revolutionaries than Samir Amin considered the American war to be of some significance. Take, for example, the catechism of the United Irishmen:

    What is that in your hand? A green bough
    Where did it grow? In America
    Where did it bloom? In France
    Where are you going to plant it? In the crown of Great Britain.

    The United Irishmen, by the way, might have been the first 18th century radicals to recognize that capitalism would inevitably stifle their bourgeois liberal aspirations, and that real political freedom would require widespread social change. "If the men of property will not support us-- they must fall. We will appeal to that respectable majority of men, the men of no property."

    1. Should have been clear... The French Revolution's seizure happened after the American Revolution, but the latter eventually gained its meaning from the former, because the former's origin point of agitation started much earlier. (This is the reason Paine was sent to France to "learn" from the French Revolution. And was imprisoned. And also why Paine spoke of being influenced by the slogan of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, etc.).

      This information about the United Irishmen is interesting but let's be clear: the American revolution was a bourgeois secession and simply to claim that "better revolutionaries than Samir Amin" thought otherwise is not an argument. Let's be clear about the desire of those leading the American Revolution: a seceding ruling class, the continuation of slavery, manifest destiny and increased genocide.

    2. Something being "bourgeois" or "capitalist" in the 18th century does not make it A Bad Thing. A Marxist blogging about the science of history should understand how ridiculous the implication that America could have had a non-bourgeois revolution is.

      This blog is usually quite good but this post stinks of utopian moralism masquerading as historical analysis.

    3. Please read what I actually wrote before making assumptions about what I was saying. I never argued that the American Revolution was a problem because it was "bourgeois" and "capitalist" just that it didn't even have the minimum revolutionary principles even on the bourgeois level. Plus, my point was about the fact that it was actually commanded by a theory. Next time you make comments, be sure to understand what I actually wrote and with-hold insulting hasty generalizations.

    4. And another thing: the next time you post in violation of the Comments Policy (misreading what I actually wrote, commenting as "anonymous", and veering close to trolling), you will be deleted. I have little patience for people who cannot read what I wrote, let alone appreciate the main argument of the article, and who disappear down the path of some side point that was not the main point of my article based on an erroneous understanding of what was written. Nor do I have patience for insults pretending to be arguments, such as your last sentence.

    5. When I can't sleep, I sometimes find myself reading the facebook page for occupy toronto... It makes me really not want to think about what the theory is that is guiding their movement (though of course I have thought about it, and it annoys me). Though I shouldn't generalize too much, because there are people working to try and push a more radical line.

    6. That sounds like some really fun bedtime reading material, xtina... Or do you read it because it puts you to sleep?


Post a Comment